My apologies, Smurfer. It seems I was the one misunderstanding you. I agree with most of what you said there. I'll try to reply to it all in full soon. I thought you were saying to rip it all out and replace it - which some people have indeed suggested.

Talvieno wrote:My apologies, Smurfer. It seems I was the one misunderstanding you. I agree with most of what you said there. I'll try to reply to it all in full soon. I thought you were saying to rip it all out and replace it - which some people have indeed suggested.

I hope I didn't give offense.

As in my previous post: No, no, and no Meaning: all fine here, no offence, no need to apologize
These discussions are fruitful and interesting.

I've taken snippets from that page, and placed them here to entice people to read through the whole page.

Josh Parnell, July 2014 wrote:
Summary of the Week of July 13, 2014
- Finalized and revealed the UDF / LTSL syntax

Friday, July 18, 2014

Yes! Yes yes! Very excited about today. Today I finally closed out my work on UDF formatting and, hence, LT script syntax. I'm excited to share what I've got, since I've been keeping it under wraps.
The fastest way that I can explain the finalized syntax and general ideology behind the LT scripting language is as LISP without the parentheses. In other words, a more syntactically-nice LISP. As I've hinted at before, the language is functional in spirit. However, that doesn't mean that we can't make the syntax a bit nicer than what is usually found in functional languages!

In UDF, instead of requiring parens to delimit all expressions, I introduce a similar concept as Python, wherein indentation can also be used to delimit them. The best way to explain is through example, so let's see an example of an LT script!

masseffect7 wrote:Based on my understanding, the whole LTSL thing was done at least in part to increase the moddability of the game. If I would have had a vote then, I would have voted against it then as well.

Myself as well.

JoshParnell wrote:Yes, those were back in the days when I was simply pumping out C++ as fast as I could. And there's nothing wrong with that. I could resume that approach today and have a much lesser form (and non-moddable) of Limit Theory out in a very reasonable timespan (and that's only because I've re-architectured the engine and now know how to prevent monoliths). But that's not going to happen, because, as my conception of Limit Theory matured, modding became something that I simply had to have. I want you all to be a part of Limit Theory's development. I want to see what people can do with this technology over which I have slaved for years. I want to play insane variations of my game that blow my mind. And it's all very much possible. I'm fine with dropping other content (especially content that has crept in since the original design doc) -- it can be appended later via modding. But I'm no longer fine with a non-moddable LT, and this is where the real challenge lies

Not to disagree, exactly, but this would be equivalent to "whoever has the biggest stick wins," wouldn't it? Winning any engagement would just mean showing up with the most & biggest ships. What about all the nifty NPC AI Josh might be implementing?

I suspect that (number * power) alone would wind up shifting what NPC AI learns wins battles from fleet tactics to winning an economic race by building the most ships faster than one's opponent.

If this is a problem, then the solution might be to introduce into your equation a "tactical competence factor" for each fleet. For a lightly-simulated region of space, this might be calculated based on a combination of skill level and experience at:

Converting all these abilities into a Fleet_Tactics value would make the summary calculation:

Ships × Ship_Types × Fleet_Tactics = Strength

Fleet_Tactics -- the capability of that particular group of ships and their commanders to improvise, work together, and advantageously exploit local features -- is multiplied to the number of ships and their types because tactical prowess is, literally, a "force multiplier."

I don't care much for RTS play myself (when it's confused with strategic play, that is), but making tactics meaningful in fleet actions sounds like more fun to me than an arms production race.

Personal taste, probably.

Last edited by Flatfingers on Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How do you define "strategic empire management"? I initially chose it thinking that the feature either wasn't planned for 1.0 or that it would occur so late in the game that it really didn't need to be in the first version of the game.